- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:54:42 -0400
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, skall@nist.gov
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 08:35 AM 8/16/02 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >So what do you recommend: I would leave the sentence in, but qualify it with examples of why/how someone may want to supply their own definition, putting in the examples of applicability to profiles, levels, etc. >* drop the sentence(s) > >* qualify as you said -- specs might possibly narrowing *scope* of >definition (or its applicability) to a module, profile, level etc > >* other. > >(I was wondering, as I read it, about this: a spec maybe could have a >stricter definition that tightens up ambiguities in our definition, like >discretionary items, etc -- we had a previous discussion about the latter, >inconclusive so far -- it will come back later, I think). > >-Lofton.d > **************************************************************** Mark Skall Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 Voice: 301-975-3262 Fax: 301-590-9174 Email: skall@nist.gov ****************************************************************
Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 10:48:28 UTC